Search

Background: Lung metastases are the most common form of distant failure for patients diagnosed with sarcoma with metastasectomy considered for some patients with limited metastatic disease and good performance status. Alternatives to surgery such as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) can be considered, though data are limited. We present outcomes after SBRT for sarcoma lung metastases., Methods: Fifty sarcoma patients with 109 lung metastases were treated with SBRT between 2005 and 2021. Outcomes evaluated included local control (LC), overall survival (OS), and toxicity including lung pneumonitis/fibrosis, chest wall toxicity, dermatitis, brachial plexus, and esophageal toxicity. Systemic therapy receipt before and after SBRT was recorded., Results: SBRT schedules were divided into 3 cohorts: 30 to 34 Gy/1fx (n=10 [20%]), 48 to 50 Gy/4 to 5fx (n=24[48%]), and 60 Gy/5fx (n=16[32%]). With a median follow-up of 19.5 months, 1/3-year LC rates were 96%/88% and 1/3-year OS 77%/50%, respectively. There was no differences between the 3 regimens in terms of LC, OS, or toxicity. Size >4 cm was a predictor of worse LC ( P =0.031) and worse OS ( P = 0.039) on univariate analysis. The primary pattern of failure was new metastases (64%) of which the majority were in the contralateral lung (52%). One-year chemotherapy-free survival was 85%. Overall, 76% of patients did not require chemotherapy initiation or change of chemotherapy regimen after lung SBRT. Toxicity was reported in 16% of patients overall, including 25%, 20%, and 14% in the 30 to 34 Gy/1fx, 48 to 50 Gy/4 to 5fx, and 60 Gy/5fx cohorts, respectively., Conclusions: SBRT outcomes for lung metastases from sarcoma demonstrate high rates of LC and are similar with different dose/fractionation regimens. Lung SBRT is associated with prolonged chemotherapy-free survival. Prospective validation of these results is warranted., Competing Interests: C.S.: Consultant ImpediMed, Consultant PreludeDX, Consultant Videra Surgical, Grants—Varian Medical Systems, VisionRT, PreludeDx. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Expert consensus on the potential benefits of early cancer detection does not exist for most cancer types. We convened 10 practicing oncologists using a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel to evaluate which of 20 solid tumors, representing >40 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)-identified cancer types and 80% of total cancer incidence, would receive potential clinical benefits from early detection. Pre-meeting, experts estimated how long cancers take to progress and rated the current curability and benefit (improvement in curability) of an annual hypothetical multi-cancer screening blood test. Post-meeting, experts rerated all questions. Cancers had varying estimates of the potential benefit of early cancer detection depending on estimates of their curability and progression by stage. Cancers rated as progressing quickly and being curable in earlier stages (stomach, esophagus, lung, urothelial tract, melanoma, ovary, sarcoma, bladder, cervix, breast, colon/rectum, kidney, uterus, anus, head and neck) were estimated to be most likely to benefit from a hypothetical screening blood test. Cancer types rated as progressing quickly but having comparatively lower cure rates in earlier stages (liver/intrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, pancreas) were estimated to have medium likelihood of benefit from a hypothetical screening blood test. Cancer types rated as progressing more slowly and having higher curability regardless of stage (prostate, thyroid) were estimated to have limited likelihood of benefit from a hypothetical screening blood test. The panel concluded most solid tumors have a likelihood of benefit from early detection. Even among difficult-to-treat cancers (e.g., pancreas, liver/intrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder), early-stage detection was believed to be beneficial. Based on the panel consensus, broad coverage of cancers by screening blood tests would deliver the greatest potential benefits to patients., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: LS, SA, HB, JB, GTB, LC, MC, PC, BJM, DJW reported consulting fees from Partnership for Health Analytic Research (PHAR), LLC and GRAIL, LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina, Inc., currently held separate from Illumina, Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October 2021. ARK and AK are employees of GRAIL, LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina, Inc., currently held separate from Illumina, Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October 2021, who supported this study, and reported stock or stock options in Illumina (parent company of GRAIL, LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina, Inc., currently held separate from Illumina, Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October 2021). MSB, IY, and CC are employees of Partnership for Health Analytic Research (PHAR), LLC which was paid by the following to conduct research related to the work described in the manuscript: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biomarin Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Celgene, Dompe, Eisai, Exact Sciences Corporation, Genentech, GRAIL, LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina, Inc., currently held separate from Illumina, Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October 2021, Ionis, Jazz, Kite, Novartis, Otsuka, Recordati, Regeneron, Sanofi US Services, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2022 Schwartzberg et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Recurrence after resection of metastatic sarcoma is common. The gangliosides GM2, GD2 and GD3 are strongly expressed across sarcoma subtypes. We hypothesised that generation of anti-ganglioside antibodies would control micrometastases and improve outcomes in sarcoma patients who were disease-free after metastasectomy., Methods: We conducted a randomised phase II trial of the immunological adjuvant OPT-821 with a KLH-conjugated ganglioside vaccine targeting GM2, GD2 and GD3, versus OPT-821 alone in patients with metastatic sarcoma following complete metastasectomy. Patients received 10 subcutaneous injections at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 8, 16, 28, 40, 52, 68 and 84 and were followed for evidence of recurrent disease. The primary end-point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end-points included overall survival and serologic response., Results: A total of 136 patients were randomised, 68 to each arm. The mean age was 51.2, 52.2% were male, 90.4% had relapsed disease, 86.8% had high-grade tumours and 14% had ≥4 metastases resected. Histologies included leiomyosarcoma (33%), spindle cell sarcoma (14%), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (13%), osteosarcoma (10%), synovial sarcoma (9%), liposarcoma (9%) and others (12%). Most adverse events were Grade ≤2 (83.8% and 70.6% in the vaccine and adjuvant arms, respectively). The most common (≥20% of patients) were injection site reaction (89.7%), fatigue (44.1%) and pyrexia (27.9%) on the vaccine arm, and injection site reaction (69.1%) on the adjuvant only arm. The 1-year relapse-free survival rate (34.5% and 34.8% in the vaccine and OPT-821 monotherapy arm, respectively) did not differ between arms (P = 0.725). One-year overall survival rates were 93.1% and 91.5% in the vaccine and OPT-821 monotherapy arm, respectively (P = 0.578). Serologic responses at week 9 were more frequent on the vaccine arm (96.5% of patients) than in the adjuvant arm (32.8%), and the difference between groups was durable., Conclusions: A sustained serologic response to vaccination was induced with the vaccine, but no difference in recurrence-free or overall survival was observed between treatment arms., Clinicaltrials: gov identifier: NCT01141491., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evofosfamide is a hypoxia-activated prodrug of bromo-isophosphoramide mustard. We aimed to assess the benefit of adding evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcomas., Methods: We did this international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial (TH CR-406/SARC021) at 81 academic or community investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 15 years or older with a diagnosis of an advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, of intermediate or high grade, for which no standard curative therapy was available, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m 2 via bolus injection administered over 5-20 min or continuous intravenous infusion for 6-96 h on day 1 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles) or doxorubicin (given via the same dose procedure) plus evofosfamide (300 mg/m 2 intravenously for 30-60 min on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles). After six cycles of treatment, patients in the single-drug doxorubicin group were followed up expectantly whereas patients with stable or responsive disease in the combination group were allowed to continue with evofosfamide monotherapy until documented disease progression. A web-based central randomisation with block sizes of two and four was stratified by extent of disease, doxorubicin administration method, and previous systemic therapy. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received any amount of study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440088., Findings: Between Sept 26, 2011, and Jan 22, 2014, 640 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (317 to doxorubicin plus evofosfamide and 323 to doxorubicin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall survival endpoint was not reached (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·29; p=0·527), with a median overall survival of 18·4 months (95% CI 15·6-22·1) with doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus 19·0 months (16·2-22·4) with doxorubicin alone. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups were haematological, including anaemia (150 [48%] of 313 patients in the doxorubicin plus evofosfamide group vs 65 [21%] of 308 in the doxorubicin group), neutropenia (47 [15%] vs 92 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (57 [18%] vs 34 [11%]), leucopenia (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]), decreased neutrophil count (31 [10%] vs 41 [13%]), and decreased white blood cell count (39 [13%] vs 33 [11%]). Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more common in the combination group (45 [14%]) than in the doxorubicin alone group (four [1%]), as was grade 3-4 stomatitis (26 [8%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 145 (46%) of 313 patients in the combination group and 99 (32%) of 308 in the doxorubicin alone group. Five (2%) patients died from treatment-related causes in the combination group (sepsis [n=2], septic shock [n=1], congestive cardiac failure [n=1], and unknown cause [n=1]) versus one (<1%) patient in the doxorubicin alone group (lactic acidosis [n=1])., Interpretation: The addition of evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy did not improve overall survival compared with single-drug doxorubicin in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas and so this combination cannot be recommended in this setting., Funding: Threshold Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Based upon the hypothesis that prolonged exposure to the S-Phase specific agent topotecan would be more efficacious in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas than a conventional 5-day schedule of the drug, the Southwest Oncology Group performed a Phase II trial of topotecan administered as a continuous infusion in adult patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas., Methods: Patients who had received no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease were treated with topotecan at a dose of 0.50 mg/m2/day on days 1-21 of repeated 28 day cycles., Results: Twenty-two patients were enrolled on the study, of whom 21 were eligible. No objective responses were observed (95% confidence interval of 0-16%). The median survival was 12 months (95% confidence interval of 5-16 months)., Conclusions: We conclude that topotecan, given either according to a 5-day or a 21-day schedule, has minimal activity in the treatment of adult soft tissue sarcomas.